SC judge rejects demand to recuse from land case

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed a sharp clash between Justice Arun Mishra and petitioners seeking his recusal in a land acquisition case , with the judge saying he did not think the apprehension that he might be biased was correct and he saw no reason to withdraw.


The plea for recusal was presented by parties that included farmer associations who argued that Mishra was also on a bench that had delivered verdict in a land acquisition case whose correctness is being examined by a Constitution bench headed by him.

However, Mishra felt the grounds were not valid. "We should be more concerned about the integrity of the institution ... I am speaking from the heart and not from a legal head. If I feel that I may be influenced then I will be the first person to recuse. I am not biased and I do not get influenced by anything on earth, not even by my own judgment. If I am able to pass the test on judicial integrity and conscience, I will not recuse," he said.

The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, decided to first adjudicate on the plea seeking the judge's recusal before proceeding with the case on interpreting certain provisions of the land acquisition law . The bench decided to examine the issues of judicial propriety first.

The Constitution bench was set up by the Chief Justice of India to examine the correctness of contradictory judgments delivered by two benches of the SC, both comprising three judges.

In the 2014 Pune Municipal Authority case involving the interpretation of the new law, a three-judge bench comprising Justices RM Lodha, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph said the state depositing compensation in its own treasury cannot be deemed as landowners having been paid. It said in cases where the landowner refuses compensation, the sum can be deposited with the court.

But in February 2018, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and Mohan Shantanagoudar ruled in the Indore Development Authority case that in case of a landowner refusing compensation, depositing it with the treasury was sufficient and there was no obligation on the state to deposit it in court. The bench with a 2:1 majority called the 2014 judgment per incuriam (judgment decided without due regard to law or facts).

Another three-judge bench noticed the contradictions in the two judgments and stayed all cases until the question relating to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was settled.

As the Constitution bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat assembled to hear the case, senior advocate Shyam Divan raised the question whether Justice Mishra should hear the case as he had already expressed his view in his judgment which is under examination. He said the proceedings are virtually an appeal to decide which judgment is correct and it would not be proper for a judge to hear an appeal against his own judgment.

Justice Mishra, however, said going by that logic all judges who had earlier dealt with land acquisition cased would not be eligible to hear the case and it would be difficult for the CJI to constitute the bench. He said the bench is supposed to settle the legal issue and he cannot compel other judges of the bench to agree with his views. "There is no harm in saying that the judgment is not correct. Judgments are always stepping stones and it can be changed and modified," he said.

Divan, however, said he is not seeking recusal on any principle of law but on judicial propriety. He said the judges are trained to hear and examine different perspectives on an issue but they are also human beings and the case should not be heard by a judge with a predisposition on an issue.